[Gtk-sharp-list] Announcing Gtk# releases 2.5.5 and 1.9.5

[Rafael Teixeira]

Does 1.9.5 expose some thing it doesn't implement but is meant to be
implemented by 2.5.5/2.6? If not, we could just version them, by
putting the right-valued attributes in AssemblyInfo.cs and make them
parallel installable, so that MonoDevelop links to version 2.5.x and
everybody else links to 1.9.x (I would call it 2.3.x to become 2.4 as
to make it clear what GTK version it wraps).

To state it clearly: I would build 'packages' gtk-sharp-2.4.pc and
gtk-sharp-2.6.pc, instead of an ambivalent gtk-sharp-2.0.pc

Just my 2 cents,

On 5/20/05, Todd Berman <tberman at off.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 00:13 -0400, Ben Maurer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 20:54 -0700, Todd Berman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 23:03 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > > This is a helpful reference to know what apis are new in GTK 2.6 (and
> > > > > thus would *not* be available on gtk# 1.9.x):
> > > > >
> > > > > http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gtk/ix05.html
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if we should have a tag for differences in the APIs between
> > > > 1.9.x and 2.5.x and have mcs emit a warning if the 2.5.x stuff is used.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please no. Some of us actually use 2.5.x for reasons that make sense for
> > > them.
> > >
> > > That would make it very difficult to work for me.
> > >
> > > Can we add error codes though (that would work with the nowarn stuff w/
> > > csc)? We build both with csc and mcs, and if you could tell it to ignore
> > > those new warning codes, I guess it would be fine, although I am not
> > > sure that it would be good. It is one thing to say "we don't recommend
> > > using it" and it is another to start causing tons of debug spew to say
> > > that over and over again :)
> >
> >
> > The only way it would ever work with csc is to (ab)use Obsolete:
> >
> > [Obsolete ("This api is too new!")]
> >
> > The cost of that would be:
> >       * You either turn off the obsolete warnings altogether and don't
> >         get the ones that are useful to you, or you get a spew of
> >         warnings
> >       * The error message is somewhat amusing
> >
> 
> Yes, that is what I want to avoid. This would just be nasty.
> 
> > The other option would be:
> >
> > [__GtkApiVersion ("2.4")] and you pass mcs a -req-gtk 2.2 and it warns
> > if you use any new functionality. However, that clearly won't work on
> > csc.
> >
> > We gain a bit of control here, at the cost of the thing working with
> > csc.
> >
> 
> This would be something that could be far easier to deal with (from my
> end), because although we would lose that bit of 'working with csc' the
> not working part is that the warnings are not emitted. If any path was
> chosen, I hope it is this one.
> 
> --Todd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gtk-sharp-list maillist  -  Gtk-sharp-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
> 


-- 
Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
---------------------------------------
I'm trying to become a "Rosh Gadol" before my own eyes. 
See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html for enlightment.
It hurts!